D&D 5E RIP alignment

[Shadow Over Mystara]

I think the right way to go is leave it completely out of the PHB. But leave it for the DMG and MM, as a feature that defines monsters, and then only some of them - basically, extraplanar beings who are made of the stuff, akin to elementals.

There are D&D-isms we’ve already lost that I think were more unique to the game. 3d6 straight down for ability scores, ability scores having minor mechanical effect, rolling all hit dice at each level up, characters being mostly or entirely locked into a class, XP for treasure, “name level” and domain management, etc. Alignment could be watered down or even eliminated and D&D would still be as strong as ever. It’s likely going to be the next minor evolution in its history.

Regardless of where we fall on the topic, we’ll all adapt just fine. There will still be good guys, bad guys, and a whole bunch of shady PCs in between, even if the labels are in lowercase.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the right way to go is leave it completely out of the PHB. But leave it for the DMG and MM, as a feature that defines monsters, and then only some of them - basically, extraplanar beings who are made of the stuff, akin to elementals.

There are D&D-isms we’ve already lost that I think were more unique to the game. 3d6 straight down for ability scores, ability scores having minor mechanical effect, rolling all hit dice at each level up, characters being mostly or entirely locked into a class, XP for treasure, “name level” and domain management, etc. Alignment could be watered down or even eliminated and D&D would still be as strong as ever. It’s likely going to be the next minor evolution in its history.

Regardless of where we fall on the topic, we’ll all adapt just fine. There will still be good guys, bad guys, and a whole bunch of shady PCs in between, even if the labels are in lowercase.

It's problematic in the MM because many creatures fit the various settings differently & to be honest alignment as written is really only used by a couple very tightly linked settings (greyhawk>fr & planescape)

 

[Umbran]

... D&D has its roots in wargames afterall.

"Tradition!" is not a compelling argument, in and of itself.

 

[Flamestrike]

Run these same characters by someone else who likewise "understands alignment perfectly" and they could just easily come out with different alignments for these characters. But then it becomes the predictably circular matter of Person A dismissing Person B as not understanding alignment as well as Person A does.

That's because a few people conflate 'lawful' with 'following laws', chaotic with 'breaking laws' and 'good' as 'only murders people of evil alignment'.

That is not what those alignments are.

Lawful people value order and discipline, and place a high regard on family, honor and tradition. Such a person (like Frank Castle, or Mike Ermantrout - both of whom are LE) are more than happy to break laws (dealing meth, murdering people etc) in order to maintain that order. They generally play by the rules (even if those rules are their own twisted code of honor), subject to their own moral code.

Chaotic people are reckless, impulsive and unpredictable. The place value on individual freedom and choice, and liberty, and they rail against tradition, honor and family and social expectations.

Good people refrain from harming others unless such an act is in self defence or the defence of others (and many refrain from harming others altogether). They are merciful, altruistic, charitable, self sacrificing and kind.

Evil people are prepared to harm others to get what they want, whether the 'what they want' is order, money, power, chaos, pleasure or just to simply get ahead in life. They reject mercy, compassion and kindness as weaknesses.

A person who is Neutral with respect to either of those axis doesn't feel strongly one way or the other, or display traits one way or another. They might lack the convictions to be truly kind and merciful, while also having enough empathy to avoid harming others, instead just trying to carve out a happy living for themselves as they do so.

It's really not hard to understand, but then you have people trying to argue that genocide is 'lawful good' or the Punisher is 'Neutral' (despite him being about as extreme a personality as one can get).

No need to sling casual insults.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I find alignment not as useful for PCs or NPCs, but pretty useful as a short-hand for monsters. Much like you could leave off AC as a stat but include in the description that they are wearing wearing plate mail and a shield and I could calculate their AC from that. But it would be annoying because you're missing the easy two-digit summary of their AC of 20. Similarly, you can describe their alignment in the text, but the short-hand of CE is very helpful.

Agreed, I especially find it useful for things like Demons, Devils, Celestials, etc.

That said, I found alignment extremely pointless for things like humanoids. So if I look at Kobolds statblock, I see it says Lawful Evil (which kind of surprised me, they don't seem very Lawful).

What does this mean? That all kobolds are Lawful Evil? We know that's not true (PCs can be kobolds, and be whatever alignment they want). Does it mean most kobolds are Lawful Evil? I guess... but why are most kobolds a single alignment, but humans aren't mostly one alignment? Or elves, or dwarves, etc?

Alignment being used to separate races into "goodies" and "baddies" has been a problem for some time, made worse that the "baddie races" are given traits from real-life cultures.

I'm not certain alignment being nixed entirely was necessary (and I'm not certain it is, really), but if the choice is between "Everything having set alignment" and "Nothing having set alignment," the latter is the more accurate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As per Ravenloft and Planescape, the Dragonlance we knew is dead, prepare yourself for the "reimagined" version you never asked for.

A world where you BUILD alignment into it is quite different from one where you enforce it like some inherent default.

Everyone wailing about alignment here seems to think that it's being Destroyed Forever. It's not. We're just leaving behind the idea that there SHOULD be a pre-constructed white picket fence and nuclear family in every house unless you intentionally and overtly replace it with something else. The idea that there are default states of being, rather than intentionally created and chosen ones.

No one is going to erase (or "cancel," to use the new hip fearmongering word) things like the gods or color-coded magic of Dragonlance, nor the manufactured organic siege weapons of Oofta's home campaign that are explicitly nonsapient despite their appearance. We're literally just talking about making it so you CHOOSE your bad guys rather than throwing them in unthinkingly. But of course, asking for thirty seconds' thought instead of blind adherence to Traditional Ways is, obviously, going to destroy all of the greatness of Dungeons and Dragons, eliminate and "cancel" every likable thing about it, and lead to a postapocalyptic liberal censorship hellhole where no one is allowed to have unapproved fun and every idea is questioned by the Thought Police.

Dear God it would be lovely if people could avoid resorting to moral panic responses when things they like are questioned. But D&D is part of our identity here, and everyone likes to simultaneously play identity politics and decry others for doing so.

 

[Mistwell]

It's problematic in the MM because many creatures fit the various settings differently & to be honest alignment as written is really only used by a couple very tightly linked settings (greyhawk>fr & planescape)

Alignment as written is really used in all settings, in terms how how a creature tends to behave most of the time on average.

Creatures fit different settings differently, but rarely does their behavioral tendencies meaningfully change between settings. And when it does, you spell it out in the setting. You'd still want to know what the average will be for most settings.

Much like psionics might be different in different settings though, you'd still want githyanki listed as a typical type of humanoid for most settings. And then if a specific setting changes psionics and gthyanki, you can spell that out in the setting.

Or if a particular setting has metals as rare, you'd note that some monster ACs which assume metal armor will need to be changed. But you wouldn't simply leave off AC from the average stat block just because some particular setting might treat it differently, right?

 

[Helldritch]

"Tradition!" is not a compelling argument, in and of itself.

No. But it does explain a lot of how things came to be. How can you know where you are going if you do not know where you are coming from?

And when you know the origin of something, it is easier to understand if your argument is valid or not. So to which came first? We can safely say, alignment. As in wargames, society is not something that was cared for in those years.

Old does not equate to bad and useless. New does not equate to better and progressive. Both old and new can be either. The Maxime:" Do not repair it if it ain't broken!" is quite apt in this situation.

 

[Flamestrike]

That said, I found alignment extremely pointless for things like humanoids. So if I look at Kobolds statblock, I see it says Lawful Evil (which kind of surprised me, they don't seem very Lawful).

In what way?

That alignment tells me that Kobolds are generally ordered, and value structure and discipline, but also cruel, and not above harming others (murder, torture, slavery) to get ahead.

If it was CE (like Orcs), they would instead be unpredictable and impulsive and also cruel and not above harming others (murder, torture, slavery) to get ahead.

What does this mean? That all kobolds are Lawful Evil?

No, and the MM is clear on this. It just means that Kobold society tends towards LE. They can be any alignment they choose to be.

Same as Drow who tend to be CE. That's because most Drow societies are ones that encourage betrayal, dominance and backstabbing, individual power, torture, slavery and murder.

That doesnt stop an individual Drow from being LG, or even from stopping Drow societies that are LG to form.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Creatures fit different settings differently, but rarely does their behavioral tendencies meaningfully change between settings.

This is a flaw that should be changed. That's the key assertion here: that things are enforced to a uniform default, when they should be chosen and intentional. That there should not BE default states of being, but rather that we, as the creators of these settings, should take the responsibility implied by that creationism, rather than hiding behind "tradition!" or "simplicity!" or "default!" as though such things could absolve us of our responsibilities as creators of things, fictional or otherwise.